OK, this will only make sense to those of you who are Lord of the Rings fans, but, I thought this was cool enough to share.
While I was typing up that last bit, my son was playing with some LOTR cards (a trading card game) and came up to me asking about a certain card. The picture on it is of the Elves of Lorien aiming their bows at Gimli, refusing (at first) to allow him into Lothlorien. My son asked me why the card was colored like a "bad guy" card when it had "good guys" on it. I explained to him that the "bad guys" like it when the "good guys" argue with each other and don't get along. The "bad guys" don't like it when the "good guys" work together.
And then I realized the significance of that simple lesson and it's relationship to this discussion. Pretty powerful.
If the Elves and Dwarves of Christendom can't learn to come to the common table, despite serious differences, then how much can we really accomplish? I'm glad so many of you are working in whatever capacity in your church environments to change thinking on this subject... even if the change seems slow or difficult. Sometimes it gets impossible in certain situations and that leads to difficult decisions. But all in all I am hopeful that the Holy Spirit has in store for His Church maturity as we all grow together toward the likeness of Christ.
Controversial Topics
gimli and the elves
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
This was definitely my experience -- I was long a Christian when I first became exposed to doubt and uncertainty -- I had been led by dogma for so many years, my Faith became very fragile as I worked through these issues for the first time not even realizing that the Church had worked through them hundreds of years ago and never reached concensus on many of them. Ultimately, it was liberating to me to realize there so much disagreement on things I inherently had questioned but had been afraid to do. Initially, though, I almost lost my Faith completely. Thank God I persevered and found a brother who encouraged me to love Him with all my mind and gave me "permission" if you will to doubt and to rest on the simple truths and let the rest be something we can differ in. Coincidentally, shortly after, I grew in my faith more than I had ever hoped to do and I recognize some of my beliefs are incomplete and some likely to change, the big ones are very clear to me in principle even if not in detail.The longer a Christian waits to understand that there is freedom of diversity in the universal Church of God, the harder it's going to be for them personally when they have to wake up and smell the coffee
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
I was thinking about what makes "controversial" topics so controversial.
Is it not that certain people camp out on viewpoints that other honest Christians can legitimately see differently?
If something is not undeniably true, it's not the controversy that is a bad thing, but the stubborn dogmatism that makes it controversial in the first place IMO. That needs to be confronted, albeit ever so gently of course.
Is it not that certain people camp out on viewpoints that other honest Christians can legitimately see differently?
If something is not undeniably true, it's not the controversy that is a bad thing, but the stubborn dogmatism that makes it controversial in the first place IMO. That needs to be confronted, albeit ever so gently of course.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for your response! It really helped me to see where you’re coming from, and to better understand your thinking in this. I was appalled by your story – call me naïve – and can only imagine what you and your family went through during this time. But again, thanks for sharing it with me. I can certainly appreciate how it might affect your views on church leadership and the value of uncensored, open discussion.
Since I think we’ve been reading and responding to each other’s posts through the lens of our own experience, I should probably tell you a bit about my experience. I suspect that we might very well be closer in thinking than we can see right now … at least on the major stuff.
I was born and raised a Southern Baptist, but grew fairly dissatisfied with the whole “church thing” during my college years. I wanted more of God and less of all the other hoop-jumping. A few years after graduation, I went to join a ministry called “Last Days Ministries”, drawn, at least in part, to the “counter culture” and “counter church-culture” views of Keith Green. After that, in 1983, I joined YWAM – where, by the way, I first met Steve Gregg. (By far the best teacher in our training school.)
In 1988, God called me to Taiwan to do – of all things – church planting among an unreached people group. I was actually given the opportunity and responsibility to start a church from scratch. (The believers would come into the church with no church baggage, as 99% are first-generation believers. The only baggage they’d end up with is the stuff I loaded on them myself.) It’s a terrifying thought now, but at the time I was just proud enough to glibly go for it.
Let’s just say that these last nineteen years have been eye-opening. In the midst of all God’s grace in raising up the church here, I’ve come to much more fully appreciate His view of His Bride. I’ve also come to appreciate what it takes to rightly lead a body of believers in the way that God has called us to. Bottom line … it’s not always that easy. (These years have instilled a special grace in my heart for all the mistakes church leaders make. Even if I strongly disagree with how they might go about something – like your situation, Christopher – I usually understand what might be motivating them to do it.)
And this whole issue of teaching and protecting our own doctrinal stances has raised its ugly head on more than one occasion. Early on, we decided to be careful about saying too much when the believers went exploring other teachings and ideas. (Like when WOF teachers hit the shores.) It would have been easy to say, “They’re wrong. You shouldn’t go listen to them. You shouldn’t go attend their conferences.” (Honestly, the guys in our church would have believed anything we told them without a backward glance. Such is the responsibility.) It took a great amount of discipline not to try and control things, not to say anything – one way or the other – while trusting God to help them process these new views with what they were learning about the Bible from us.
This is a huge weight of responsibility that falls on church leaders. According to Hebrews 13:17, we’ll someday give an account to God of how we did in watching over the souls of those He’s entrusted to our care. (I especially like Paul’s description of this task when he exhorts the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28-31. There’s such a sense of urgency and passion.)
I do know that there are a lot of bad spiritual leaders out there. But I don’t want my personal reaction to their wrong-headed leading to keep me from walking fully in the responsibility that God has given me as a leader. If I back off too much because some are too controlling, then I can make an equally harmful error. We need godly spiritual leaders today – leaders in the church who know how to “take care of the church of God.” (I Timothy 3:4-5. Now if someone could just explain to me what this has to do with “keeping his children under control with all dignity”, I’ll be happy.)
I believe that all leaders need to apply some level of protective covering over those entrusted to their care. So I guess the questions are – what does this look like, and how far should it cover? I sure appreciate all the issues that you (and others) are bringing up in this thread. Causes me to struggle with how I can go about this task in the most God-fearing manner. I've already been convicted on some of my thinking in this ... and that's a very good thing. Thanks.
By His Grace,
Gregg
Thanks for your response! It really helped me to see where you’re coming from, and to better understand your thinking in this. I was appalled by your story – call me naïve – and can only imagine what you and your family went through during this time. But again, thanks for sharing it with me. I can certainly appreciate how it might affect your views on church leadership and the value of uncensored, open discussion.
Since I think we’ve been reading and responding to each other’s posts through the lens of our own experience, I should probably tell you a bit about my experience. I suspect that we might very well be closer in thinking than we can see right now … at least on the major stuff.
I was born and raised a Southern Baptist, but grew fairly dissatisfied with the whole “church thing” during my college years. I wanted more of God and less of all the other hoop-jumping. A few years after graduation, I went to join a ministry called “Last Days Ministries”, drawn, at least in part, to the “counter culture” and “counter church-culture” views of Keith Green. After that, in 1983, I joined YWAM – where, by the way, I first met Steve Gregg. (By far the best teacher in our training school.)
In 1988, God called me to Taiwan to do – of all things – church planting among an unreached people group. I was actually given the opportunity and responsibility to start a church from scratch. (The believers would come into the church with no church baggage, as 99% are first-generation believers. The only baggage they’d end up with is the stuff I loaded on them myself.) It’s a terrifying thought now, but at the time I was just proud enough to glibly go for it.
Let’s just say that these last nineteen years have been eye-opening. In the midst of all God’s grace in raising up the church here, I’ve come to much more fully appreciate His view of His Bride. I’ve also come to appreciate what it takes to rightly lead a body of believers in the way that God has called us to. Bottom line … it’s not always that easy. (These years have instilled a special grace in my heart for all the mistakes church leaders make. Even if I strongly disagree with how they might go about something – like your situation, Christopher – I usually understand what might be motivating them to do it.)
And this whole issue of teaching and protecting our own doctrinal stances has raised its ugly head on more than one occasion. Early on, we decided to be careful about saying too much when the believers went exploring other teachings and ideas. (Like when WOF teachers hit the shores.) It would have been easy to say, “They’re wrong. You shouldn’t go listen to them. You shouldn’t go attend their conferences.” (Honestly, the guys in our church would have believed anything we told them without a backward glance. Such is the responsibility.) It took a great amount of discipline not to try and control things, not to say anything – one way or the other – while trusting God to help them process these new views with what they were learning about the Bible from us.
This is a huge weight of responsibility that falls on church leaders. According to Hebrews 13:17, we’ll someday give an account to God of how we did in watching over the souls of those He’s entrusted to our care. (I especially like Paul’s description of this task when he exhorts the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28-31. There’s such a sense of urgency and passion.)
I do know that there are a lot of bad spiritual leaders out there. But I don’t want my personal reaction to their wrong-headed leading to keep me from walking fully in the responsibility that God has given me as a leader. If I back off too much because some are too controlling, then I can make an equally harmful error. We need godly spiritual leaders today – leaders in the church who know how to “take care of the church of God.” (I Timothy 3:4-5. Now if someone could just explain to me what this has to do with “keeping his children under control with all dignity”, I’ll be happy.)
I believe that all leaders need to apply some level of protective covering over those entrusted to their care. So I guess the questions are – what does this look like, and how far should it cover? I sure appreciate all the issues that you (and others) are bringing up in this thread. Causes me to struggle with how I can go about this task in the most God-fearing manner. I've already been convicted on some of my thinking in this ... and that's a very good thing. Thanks.
By His Grace,
Gregg
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In reading tonight this and other threads here at the forum, I have just been impressed at what a fine fellowship we have access to here (I would think this, even if I did not find so many kind compliments about myself here). We have here pastors (and priests!) of various churches—both of "ordinary denominations" and of rather unusual movements. We have seasoned missionaries, and amateur Bible teachers (like myself), and a wide range of both men and women who are serious students of scripture—representing such a wide range of viewpoints and traditions—and yet, such a pleasant ("how good and how pleasant"—Psalm 133) aroma of Christ and humility generally prevails!
Obviously, I favor frank discussion of controversial topics—even before such general audiences as those who may happen to accidentally tune in to a radio program. My wife had concerns about this. There was the question, in her mind, of whether this could, at times, be "casting pearls before swine." She had a point, but I did not see how this medium incurred a greater danger of violating this warning than does any other form of public preaching.
However, there is the related issue of the airing of different Christian viewpoints and controversies before an audience that may include immature Christians, or quasi-Christians, who may be stumbled by exposure to controversy among Christians. I am sure that this was what concerned Christopher's pastors, and they were not the first to express this concern.
My thinking has been that it is possible to speak the truth (even unwelcome or confusing truths) in love, so that we may grow up into Him in all things. The essential element here is the phrase "in love." If we do not love people with the love of Christ, we are likely to damage them, no matter what we do, whereas, if we really love people, as Jesus does, it seems that we can scarcely avoid having an edifying effect upon them.
There may be people, whom I have not heard about, who have stumbled because listening to our program suddenly made them think that Christianity is just too confusing. I say "there may be," though I have not been informed of it. On the other hand, what I hear very frequently is from people who have felt their spiritual lives and their fascination for scripture revitalized by being introduced to a peaceable outlet for discussing differences of beliefs held among believers. On balance, the fruit that I know of has been good, though I cannot guarantee that there has been none bad.
I would say to my brother and friend Gregg (one of the few who spells his name sensibly—i.e., with the double "g" at the end), that I would not think the pastor to be overly meddlesome if he were to warn his flock of the errors of the Word of Faith teaching. On the other hand, I don't think he would be wise to forbid his flock to listen to it.
My thought, if I were in the position of such a pastor would be to encourage the people to go and hear it, but also to inform them that I have a different understanding of the scriptures and of the gospel, from that of the WOF, so that they should come back after listening to the WOF teachers, and sit down with me (or the elders) and compare what they have heard with what we understand the scriptures to teach.
If this were to be done well, it would not require censorship of any kind, but would still protect the congregation from the error. In fact, it might build into the Body the spiritual equivalent of "antibodies", which arise as a result of the introduction of harmful germs (though I do not wish for this analogy to be construed as my endorsement of immunizations for children).
Just some thoughts.
Obviously, I favor frank discussion of controversial topics—even before such general audiences as those who may happen to accidentally tune in to a radio program. My wife had concerns about this. There was the question, in her mind, of whether this could, at times, be "casting pearls before swine." She had a point, but I did not see how this medium incurred a greater danger of violating this warning than does any other form of public preaching.
However, there is the related issue of the airing of different Christian viewpoints and controversies before an audience that may include immature Christians, or quasi-Christians, who may be stumbled by exposure to controversy among Christians. I am sure that this was what concerned Christopher's pastors, and they were not the first to express this concern.
My thinking has been that it is possible to speak the truth (even unwelcome or confusing truths) in love, so that we may grow up into Him in all things. The essential element here is the phrase "in love." If we do not love people with the love of Christ, we are likely to damage them, no matter what we do, whereas, if we really love people, as Jesus does, it seems that we can scarcely avoid having an edifying effect upon them.
There may be people, whom I have not heard about, who have stumbled because listening to our program suddenly made them think that Christianity is just too confusing. I say "there may be," though I have not been informed of it. On the other hand, what I hear very frequently is from people who have felt their spiritual lives and their fascination for scripture revitalized by being introduced to a peaceable outlet for discussing differences of beliefs held among believers. On balance, the fruit that I know of has been good, though I cannot guarantee that there has been none bad.
I would say to my brother and friend Gregg (one of the few who spells his name sensibly—i.e., with the double "g" at the end), that I would not think the pastor to be overly meddlesome if he were to warn his flock of the errors of the Word of Faith teaching. On the other hand, I don't think he would be wise to forbid his flock to listen to it.
My thought, if I were in the position of such a pastor would be to encourage the people to go and hear it, but also to inform them that I have a different understanding of the scriptures and of the gospel, from that of the WOF, so that they should come back after listening to the WOF teachers, and sit down with me (or the elders) and compare what they have heard with what we understand the scriptures to teach.
If this were to be done well, it would not require censorship of any kind, but would still protect the congregation from the error. In fact, it might build into the Body the spiritual equivalent of "antibodies", which arise as a result of the introduction of harmful germs (though I do not wish for this analogy to be construed as my endorsement of immunizations for children).
Just some thoughts.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Hi Gregg,
Thank you for sharing your story with us. I understand, and agree, with the heart of protecting the flock that you and other church leaders have. It is the method and attitude of going about it that is often done dangerously wrong IMO.
you wrote:
you wrote:
I share your distaste for WOF teaching, I encounter it often in the prison I teach at. There is a group that goes in that teaches this regularly and I'm often having to respond to it. But I see it as an opportunity for growth and for people to discover the truth for themselves. I've learned that people (myself included) tend to own their beliefs more if they've wrestled through them rather than just accepting what has been spoon fed to them.
My class is a combination of a purposed and pointed bible study, and an open topic discussion done at a 2:1 ratio. For two weeks I prepare and lead a bible study, and then we have a week of open discussion. The guys really enjoy the open discussion time because they get to ask questions and discuss the things they are currently wrestling with. I've helped change the views of several people who embraced WOF through my counter-arguments, but others remain unconvinced by what I say. I leave that to God. Everybody is at different stages of their journey and some take longer than others to arrive at truthful conclusions.
you wrote:
I prefer to think that the "covering" comes from the Holy Spirit guiding us in all truth. I think something more like a pastoral concern or vigilance would be my preferred way of looking at it. That way, the concern is more about being aware of false teaching and instructing people how to discern against it and refute it rather than trying to keep people from hearing it at all (which is getting to be almost impossible these days anyway).
Steve wrote:
Lord bless.
Thank you for sharing your story with us. I understand, and agree, with the heart of protecting the flock that you and other church leaders have. It is the method and attitude of going about it that is often done dangerously wrong IMO.
you wrote:
Indeed it certainly has. But I'm now very grateful for the experience (as difficult as it was).I was appalled by your story – call me naïve – and can only imagine what you and your family went through during this time. But again, thanks for sharing it with me. I can certainly appreciate how it might affect your views on church leadership and the value of uncensored, open discussion.
you wrote:
and Steve wrote:(These years have instilled a special grace in my heart for all the mistakes church leaders make. Even if I strongly disagree with how they might go about something – like your situation, Christopher – I usually understand what might be motivating them to do it.)
I have long ago reached this same conclusion, which has helped me to forgive and even appreciate their heart and pray for them. However, the desparation of such reactive attitudes only serves to underscore my point about the bondage of dogma and it's divisive outcomes. Many church leaders are under this bondage and I pray continually that they will be set free from it.However, there is the related issue of the airing of different Christian viewpoints and controversies before an audience that may include immature Christians, or quasi-Christians, who may be stumbled by exposure to controversy among Christians. I am sure that this was what concerned Christopher's pastors, and they were not the first to express this concern.
I share your distaste for WOF teaching, I encounter it often in the prison I teach at. There is a group that goes in that teaches this regularly and I'm often having to respond to it. But I see it as an opportunity for growth and for people to discover the truth for themselves. I've learned that people (myself included) tend to own their beliefs more if they've wrestled through them rather than just accepting what has been spoon fed to them.
My class is a combination of a purposed and pointed bible study, and an open topic discussion done at a 2:1 ratio. For two weeks I prepare and lead a bible study, and then we have a week of open discussion. The guys really enjoy the open discussion time because they get to ask questions and discuss the things they are currently wrestling with. I've helped change the views of several people who embraced WOF through my counter-arguments, but others remain unconvinced by what I say. I leave that to God. Everybody is at different stages of their journey and some take longer than others to arrive at truthful conclusions.
you wrote:
I have to confess that I chafe at phrases like "protective covering" or "pastoral covering". Perhaps it's my "independent Spirit".I believe that all leaders need to apply some level of protective covering over those entrusted to their care.
I prefer to think that the "covering" comes from the Holy Spirit guiding us in all truth. I think something more like a pastoral concern or vigilance would be my preferred way of looking at it. That way, the concern is more about being aware of false teaching and instructing people how to discern against it and refute it rather than trying to keep people from hearing it at all (which is getting to be almost impossible these days anyway).
Steve wrote:
I love that analogy!!! That expresses my view on this perfectly. Do you mind if I use that sometime?If this were to be done well, it would not require censorship of any kind, but would still protect the congregation from the error. In fact, it might build into the Body the spiritual equivalent of "antibodies", which arise as a result of the introduction of harmful germs (though I do not wish for this analogy to be construed as my endorsement of immunizations for children).
Lord bless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Christopher-
in regard to WOF teaching in the prison- at what particular points do some of them remain unconvinced?
TK
in regard to WOF teaching in the prison- at what particular points do some of them remain unconvinced?
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
One thing you might try is to just hold it outside the normal class time and inform folks what will be covered -- if they come with full disclosure, they shouldn't be offended. If you let them "bring their own problems," you could have a very worthwhile time as you work through them together.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Greetings
This discussion seems to have gone past TK's original inquiry about his: Teaching a class about controversial topics. My post was to TK's topic, without regard to other things that had been brought up.
I outlined what I felt would be a good, practical, and beneficial way of going about it. I appreciate the "Good idea, Rick" feedback and hope my ideas are helpful (ideas, that I, incidentally, am trying to put into practise).
Now I want to comment on sidebars in the discussion as it has evolved.
Just as an observation; I think I may "take issue" with several things that have been brought up (?). By this, I don't mean "I'm up for a big debate" or anything like that. But I would like to discuss a couple things. It will be easier to quote-reply to do this, so:
But, of course, this would require that the Christians who disagree with one another know the difference between essentials and non-essentials; keeping in mind that what might be essential to me may not be essential to you. Not to get all postmodernist about this! but we have to consider this basic factor. I want to illustrate this point.
My mom had some friends over from her (pentecostal) church, the one I grew up in. I was invited too, as I have known these folks since I was a kid. Someone asked, "So, Rick, are you in church now?" "Yes," I replied, "I've been going to the Church of God on Campbell Road" [Anderson, IN, not pentecostal]. "I'm going there mainly because they are amillennialist like I am," I added. Then I explained what amillennialism is to a couple people who didn't know...without contesting the dispensationalist beliefs of my mom's church.
"But they aren't preaching the 'full gospel', Rick. Isn't that more important?" one sister asked (the 'full gospel' meaning: the pentecostal belief in speaking in tongues, etc., which I do believe in and practise privately). To this sister I replied, "Yes, it is important. It's just that I don't see the end times like your church does." Okay, what did I have going on here?
First, there wasn't any doubt in our discussion that the people in both churches are saved (an essential). However, this sister never did quite comprehend why I would "deny" the full gospel to opt for an agreement on eschatology. We didn't discuss it much as I could see it could possibly turn into a debate. At any rate, this lady couldn't see why I will not go to, nor support, a dispensationalist church---I didn't go into it. For me, dispensationalism treads on and distorts the essentials. Obviously, a person can be saved and believe in it. But the many ways the "dispensationalist grid" corrupts basic biblical teaching is just too much for me to feel free to go to a dispensationalist church (as a matter of conscience).
On what Christopher said (above and ff.).
I agree that understanding one another is important. And this, in any matter, not just doctrine. However, I don't think it is necessary to understand what others believe in order for there to be unity in the Body of Christ. The unity is Christ, and being in-Christ. I'm sure we all would agree in this.
My point here is that: It wasn't required that the sister I mentioned above knew everything about amillennialism and the, maybe, 50 Reasons (at minimum) why I totally oppose dispensationalism. At this pizza party at mom's house; it wasn't the time, nor the place, for me to go further into it as I could see people were beginning to be offended. Also, I have an agreement with my mom that we will not discuss eschatology till...she wants to, or asks me something about it...knowing how strongly we disagree.
At various times, mom and other relatives of mine, including my cousin who is a dispensationalist pastor, have asked me about amillennialism. In the most irenic (peaceful) way I could try to do, I attempted to explain it. But it remains that they just don't get it and can't see just a few of the 50 or more reasons why I believe dispensationalism is patently false. No matter how I try to explain it, they have a puzzled look. So, we just don't go into it much....
Yet, while there is unity in Christ with us; we have a real division on eschatology. So much so that I cannot become a member of the church I grew up in.
What SE said.
Regarding Steve's ministry, I think SE is generally correct (Hello, Steve). Steve's ministry is, imo, somewhere between a theological professor and the "Bible teacher" he claims to be, and is. Let me further llustrate what I mean.
When I went to Bible college I was taught the things my (current, A/G at that time) denomination believed. But also, I was exposed to Calvinism, universalism, and other beliefs the denomination didn't hold to. A pastor, by theory in evangelical Bible colleges, has a need to know what other churches believe. I suppose part of the theory being, that he will interact in the community with other churches and people who have different church and/or theological backgrounds. In this sense, learning "other beliefs" is valuable; to be able to assess where people are coming from, and so on.
Steve's ministry is like this. It has an "academic" (or theoretical) aspect which serves the purpose of understanding where people come from: What they believe and why, etc. What Steve does is very helpful for these specific purposes.
Now, "What about the actual NT teaching?" as a next question. Did the Jesus and the Apostles have open classroom discussions and debates? In some sense we can see it (questions and answers in Jesus' ministry). But what we don't see in the NT is a diversity of viewpoints along the lines of essential doctrine. The NT proclamation of the gospel, and gospel tradition, wasn't a matter of "We have different views and opinions and need to learn about, and accept, our diversity." In a word, the people in the NT weren't postmodernists...we could be...but they definitely weren't, imo!
On certain things, some doctrinal leeway was given, such as on eating meat sacrificed to idols (in Paul). Yet Paul went against the Jerusalem decision of Acts 15 on this matter (maybe 5-7 years afterwards, as seen in Romans). It seems the churches Paul "served" were outside of Jerusalem's jurisdiction by the late 50's. Otherwise, Paul may have been "called on the carpet for his Hellenistic ways"...again....
_______________
In closing (long post). Regarding the fairly recent "universalism debate" on the forum.
I do believe there was some confusion about being "open-minded" and what that really is. (Not to rehash things or to start the debate back up again). Through the posts and a few things I heard on TNP radio, I need to comment that: There is a big difference between understanding a belief and accepting it.
Contrary to opinions expressed; I didn't (and don't) reject universalism because "I have to see hell as a place of punishment." And I, also, fully understand that universalists believe hell is a place of salvation. I just don't believe this. I have no fears or concerns about "becoming a liberal" which prevent me from accepting universalism. This may have been others' experience but it hasn't been mine....
Yet nothing I could say would have convinced the universalists here that I am unbiased; that I have studied it fully enough to know and understand universalist doctrine---I understand it but do not believe in it---and was as "open-minded" about it as I am to any other idea or doctrine.
So, where does this bring us?
It brings a real division; one that needn't be gone into further. Just as I'm not at liberty to go to a dispensationalist church; I'm even (more so) not-free to go to a universalist church.
Thus, I dropped the debate/discussion on the forum...much in the same way as I, basically, avoid discussing eschatology with my relatives. It serves no benefit and, generally, causes contention.
Is this a "type" of dis-unity in the Body of Christ?
Yes, in varying levels, depending on what topic it may be....
What can be done about it?
My better judgment said, "Drop this debate, Rick."
(Actually, the Lord TOLD me to do this, folks, I'll go ahead and say)....
So I don't think it necessarily "helps" to know what others believe; especially if there is strong disagreement, and after this becomes known to all concerned.
In the end, it seems to come down to individual responsibility and accountability:
"For we all shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ."
Sometimes you just have to: "Live, and let live" (I do, anyway).
Thanks for reading,
Rick
This discussion seems to have gone past TK's original inquiry about his: Teaching a class about controversial topics. My post was to TK's topic, without regard to other things that had been brought up.
I outlined what I felt would be a good, practical, and beneficial way of going about it. I appreciate the "Good idea, Rick" feedback and hope my ideas are helpful (ideas, that I, incidentally, am trying to put into practise).
Now I want to comment on sidebars in the discussion as it has evolved.
Just as an observation; I think I may "take issue" with several things that have been brought up (?). By this, I don't mean "I'm up for a big debate" or anything like that. But I would like to discuss a couple things. It will be easier to quote-reply to do this, so:
What Rae said, I couldn't agree more.Rae wrote: It could help Christians to be more accepting of other Christians who hold different viewpoints than their own on some non-essential issues.
Christopher replied:
I would like to echo this sentiment. I don't know what TK would answer about his reasons, but I have come to believe that understanding the viewpoints of other Christians (agree or disagree) is an essential element of unity in the body of Christ.
TK added:This, in fact is WHY i would like to teach this class!
And, for me at least, I realize that I am much better off learning different POV's (particulary at this forum) than when I was ignorant that there even WERE differing, legitimate, POVs.
SE replied:
I agree TK. Though I feel I have spent too much time online here, I still say that there is a grace that has been formed in me to be open-minded to other views. This is desire of Steve's too, to get people to be open-minded to other Christian's views and still love and accept them as a Christian. I think it has rubbed off on me during my time hanging around fellowshiping here. If only all off the body was like that.
to which Christopher responded:
It's getting there.
But, of course, this would require that the Christians who disagree with one another know the difference between essentials and non-essentials; keeping in mind that what might be essential to me may not be essential to you. Not to get all postmodernist about this! but we have to consider this basic factor. I want to illustrate this point.
My mom had some friends over from her (pentecostal) church, the one I grew up in. I was invited too, as I have known these folks since I was a kid. Someone asked, "So, Rick, are you in church now?" "Yes," I replied, "I've been going to the Church of God on Campbell Road" [Anderson, IN, not pentecostal]. "I'm going there mainly because they are amillennialist like I am," I added. Then I explained what amillennialism is to a couple people who didn't know...without contesting the dispensationalist beliefs of my mom's church.
"But they aren't preaching the 'full gospel', Rick. Isn't that more important?" one sister asked (the 'full gospel' meaning: the pentecostal belief in speaking in tongues, etc., which I do believe in and practise privately). To this sister I replied, "Yes, it is important. It's just that I don't see the end times like your church does." Okay, what did I have going on here?
First, there wasn't any doubt in our discussion that the people in both churches are saved (an essential). However, this sister never did quite comprehend why I would "deny" the full gospel to opt for an agreement on eschatology. We didn't discuss it much as I could see it could possibly turn into a debate. At any rate, this lady couldn't see why I will not go to, nor support, a dispensationalist church---I didn't go into it. For me, dispensationalism treads on and distorts the essentials. Obviously, a person can be saved and believe in it. But the many ways the "dispensationalist grid" corrupts basic biblical teaching is just too much for me to feel free to go to a dispensationalist church (as a matter of conscience).
On what Christopher said (above and ff.).
I agree that understanding one another is important. And this, in any matter, not just doctrine. However, I don't think it is necessary to understand what others believe in order for there to be unity in the Body of Christ. The unity is Christ, and being in-Christ. I'm sure we all would agree in this.
My point here is that: It wasn't required that the sister I mentioned above knew everything about amillennialism and the, maybe, 50 Reasons (at minimum) why I totally oppose dispensationalism. At this pizza party at mom's house; it wasn't the time, nor the place, for me to go further into it as I could see people were beginning to be offended. Also, I have an agreement with my mom that we will not discuss eschatology till...she wants to, or asks me something about it...knowing how strongly we disagree.
At various times, mom and other relatives of mine, including my cousin who is a dispensationalist pastor, have asked me about amillennialism. In the most irenic (peaceful) way I could try to do, I attempted to explain it. But it remains that they just don't get it and can't see just a few of the 50 or more reasons why I believe dispensationalism is patently false. No matter how I try to explain it, they have a puzzled look. So, we just don't go into it much....
Yet, while there is unity in Christ with us; we have a real division on eschatology. So much so that I cannot become a member of the church I grew up in.
What SE said.
Regarding Steve's ministry, I think SE is generally correct (Hello, Steve). Steve's ministry is, imo, somewhere between a theological professor and the "Bible teacher" he claims to be, and is. Let me further llustrate what I mean.
When I went to Bible college I was taught the things my (current, A/G at that time) denomination believed. But also, I was exposed to Calvinism, universalism, and other beliefs the denomination didn't hold to. A pastor, by theory in evangelical Bible colleges, has a need to know what other churches believe. I suppose part of the theory being, that he will interact in the community with other churches and people who have different church and/or theological backgrounds. In this sense, learning "other beliefs" is valuable; to be able to assess where people are coming from, and so on.
Steve's ministry is like this. It has an "academic" (or theoretical) aspect which serves the purpose of understanding where people come from: What they believe and why, etc. What Steve does is very helpful for these specific purposes.
Now, "What about the actual NT teaching?" as a next question. Did the Jesus and the Apostles have open classroom discussions and debates? In some sense we can see it (questions and answers in Jesus' ministry). But what we don't see in the NT is a diversity of viewpoints along the lines of essential doctrine. The NT proclamation of the gospel, and gospel tradition, wasn't a matter of "We have different views and opinions and need to learn about, and accept, our diversity." In a word, the people in the NT weren't postmodernists...we could be...but they definitely weren't, imo!
On certain things, some doctrinal leeway was given, such as on eating meat sacrificed to idols (in Paul). Yet Paul went against the Jerusalem decision of Acts 15 on this matter (maybe 5-7 years afterwards, as seen in Romans). It seems the churches Paul "served" were outside of Jerusalem's jurisdiction by the late 50's. Otherwise, Paul may have been "called on the carpet for his Hellenistic ways"...again....
_______________
In closing (long post). Regarding the fairly recent "universalism debate" on the forum.
I do believe there was some confusion about being "open-minded" and what that really is. (Not to rehash things or to start the debate back up again). Through the posts and a few things I heard on TNP radio, I need to comment that: There is a big difference between understanding a belief and accepting it.
Contrary to opinions expressed; I didn't (and don't) reject universalism because "I have to see hell as a place of punishment." And I, also, fully understand that universalists believe hell is a place of salvation. I just don't believe this. I have no fears or concerns about "becoming a liberal" which prevent me from accepting universalism. This may have been others' experience but it hasn't been mine....
Yet nothing I could say would have convinced the universalists here that I am unbiased; that I have studied it fully enough to know and understand universalist doctrine---I understand it but do not believe in it---and was as "open-minded" about it as I am to any other idea or doctrine.
So, where does this bring us?
It brings a real division; one that needn't be gone into further. Just as I'm not at liberty to go to a dispensationalist church; I'm even (more so) not-free to go to a universalist church.
Thus, I dropped the debate/discussion on the forum...much in the same way as I, basically, avoid discussing eschatology with my relatives. It serves no benefit and, generally, causes contention.
Is this a "type" of dis-unity in the Body of Christ?
Yes, in varying levels, depending on what topic it may be....
What can be done about it?
My better judgment said, "Drop this debate, Rick."
(Actually, the Lord TOLD me to do this, folks, I'll go ahead and say)....
So I don't think it necessarily "helps" to know what others believe; especially if there is strong disagreement, and after this becomes known to all concerned.
In the end, it seems to come down to individual responsibility and accountability:
"For we all shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ."
Sometimes you just have to: "Live, and let live" (I do, anyway).
Thanks for reading,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hi Christopher,I have to confess that I chafe at phrases like "protective covering" or "pastoral covering". Perhaps it's my "independent Spirit".
Sorry about the “protective covering” thing … it was a real poor choice of words on my part. I realize now how this phrase might convey some kind of authority, when I just wanted to show the responsibility. Like you said, it’s more of a vigilant watch kind of thing. (Acts 20:28-31)
One thing that would be real helpful for spiritual leaders (many, or most, on this forum, huh?) is to discuss what healthy, “protective vigilance” leadership looks like. A description of what it is instead of what it isn’t. (Though, of course, that’s important also.) Maybe a close look at how Paul – mostly through his letters – practically shepherded his church plants. What did his guarding look like? What were his methods? How did he go about protecting the sheep? How far did he go in using his authority? Again, I’m afraid that if I constantly react against the wrong ways of leading, I’ll go too far and dismiss some important God-given responsibilities, as well. (Maybe a bit like how some husbands, in reacting against the abuse of authority by some men in marriage, stop leading altogether.)I understand, and agree, with the heart of protecting the flock that you and other church leaders have. It is the method and attitude of going about it that is often done dangerously wrong IMO.
Well, I'm pretty sure I'm taking this thread where it wasn't headed. Sorry about that. Maybe we can talk more about this someday on another thread.
Thanks again, Christopher, for the feedback. It’s good to get me thinking about these things.
By His Grace,
Gregg
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: